tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN October 9, 2012 1:00am-5:59am EDT
tackle the issue of affirmative action. do you think a college applicant's race should be a factor in whether or not they're admitted to a virginia college? >> the supreme court will tackle this case, which i think they last sort of dealt with in two cases from the university of michigan in the early part of the 2000's. the issue there and issue spending today, do our public colleges accept students and student body that sort of look like the state or look like the population they serve? my kids have gone to the public schools in richmond. they've come up in classrooms that are extremely diverse. they've gotten really good academic education but they've also really gotten spectacular education in living with the folks who are the real virginia today. we're increasingly diverse state and that's an important part of medication. -- education. i would hope what the supreme court would do in this case would be they would affirm that
it is ok for a public institution, whether it's government body handing out contracts or student or college admitting students, that it's ok for them to try to make sure that their student body looks like the state looks. they should if at all practical use factors on race and economic disadvantage, are you the first in your family to go to college? but if you see public institutions where the numbers of students dramatically different then the state population, i think it's an indication of challenge and problem that we have to try to solve. i strongly believe the diversity of our commonwealth is the strength, diversity of our nation is a strength and we ought to see diversity in our public bodies. >> mr. allen? >> i'm in some agreement with tim's expressions. i'm someone who's in favor of affirmative recruitment and i think everyone regardless of background ought to have an equal opportunity to compete and succeed. i would not want to deny people an opportunity based oni would e
an opportunity based on race regardless of what their race is. while affirmative recruitment makes good sense, don't want people who are qualified or better qualified being denied that opportunity. we will see how the supreme court rules on this case but i think people of good hearts and good minds can come up with a proper way of addressing the need for young people, all people to get a good, quality education. i do want to say this if tim missed it, our plan getting our budget in order is clear. number one, repeal obama care and replace it. that will save over $1 trill en. -- trillion. secondly, the auditors of the government identified $50 billion of overlapped and redundant programs. free, unleash our american energy resources. that's over a trillion dollars of revenues. number four, have it more comprehensive or more competitive simple tax code with fewer deductions than would not only create over 500,000 new jobs a year but over $23 billion would come in every year. that's the way to do it. set priorities, make cuts but
also grow the economy. >> now time for our closing statements and by the order of coin flip, mr. allen, you go first. >> well, thank you for the opportunity to have this debate and thank you all again for watching. there's a lot at stake in this election. it's a pivotal election but it's going to determine the trajectory of our country. whether there will be changes in the united states senate, if tim is in, he will be in there for the same folks he's campaigning for all of these years when he was chair of the democratic national committee, ignoring the needs, dire needs of people in virginia. i want to see change in washington, those positive, constructive ideas that can get this country going in the right direction. i believe we ought to get united behind the mission of sending a message to the world that america is open for business again. i think that anybody who pays taxes should be on our side unless you want to pay higher taxes. if you use electricity, you ought on our side.
if you want more affordable electricity. if you drive a car and don't like the fact you're paying over $30 more every time you fill up, you ought to be on our side. if you agree with me doctors and patients ought to be making health care decisions rather then panels of bureaucrats up in washington, you ought to be on our side. if you're working for a living or if you want a job, the approach i have been advocating has proven to work. over 300,000 net new jobs created in virginia when we're working together. republicans and democrats making regulations more reasonable. taxes lower. making sure that we froze college tuition to make sure it was accessible and affordable to virginians. all of that was beneficial to virginia and indeed if you care about the future of your children or your grandchildren, you should be on our side. i hope to be your voice in washington. but hard working tax paying families of virginia need someone on their side in
washington and i hope to be there working for you and making sure all americans no matter their background, have the great opportunity to catch their dreams here in america. >> bob, i think the u.s. economy is ready for a breakthrough. there are some positive signs as we saw last week. but as i mentioned in my opening, i think congress is the shackle. congress is the ankle wait now and ineffective for congress fiscally irresponsible and doesn't know how to work together. the decision to filibuster and block a veteran jobs bill and farm bill before election day is a perfect example we have to put new ways of thinking in congress. we have to fix the economy by investing in infrastructure and expanding educational opportunities and leveling the playing field for small businesses but we can't get there if congress is fiscally responsible and doesn't work together. on the fiscal side i have a record. governor during the worst recession since 1930's, cut by a billion in spending, cut my own -- cut $5 in spending, cut my
own pay as lieutenant governor and governor to try to two the right thing to keep virginia leading the way among other states. we were taupe of all of the accolades of states whether i when i was governor at a very difficult time. my opponent has a different record. he was in the united states senate and as i indicated started with surpluses and budget in the best shape he ever had and by the time left, it was in shambles. he wrecked both sigh of the balance sheet and hasn't said anything today about what he would do to get it back. we also need find people who know how to work together. here in richmond as governor as a tough time, it was about working together to ban smoking in restaurants and bars, put a billion dollars into the chesapeake bay, preserve open space. we worked together even when we disagreed. but my opponent has a different track record. when he was governor he famously said his job was to enjoy knocking democrats' soft teeth down their whiny throats. more to the point when he went into the senate and there were everyday efforts to find compromise led by virginia's senior senator john warner in the gang of 14, he did not only
not join those efforts but ridiculed them saying we don't need to compromise. we need folks who know how to compromise and work together. we will not move forward as a nation if we can't join together. that's the way i have served and that's the way i will serve if i have the honor to be virginia's next united states senator. thanks. >> thank you very much. mr. allen, mr. kaine, i want to thank you both of you for taking part in a very vigorous debate this evening. i want to thank our audience both here and at wcve and at home for watching and try to remind everyone to vote in what is going to be one of the crucial and critical elections in america. i would like to turn it over to our host, bill fitzgerald from wtvr. >> thank you, bob. it's been a vigorous debate and this program has been brought to you in part by aarp virginia, league of women voters of virginia, wtvr cbs 6 and pbs, community idea station. we want to say thanks again to the candidates for appearing together on the stage tonight. we heard a lot about social security, medicare.
many of the issues voters of virginia are facing. we want to thank those voters and our live audience for taking part this evening. don't forget, election day is now less than a month away. on behalf of everyone who brought this debate to you, i'm bill fitzgerald. good night. >> all this month and until election day, c-span is bringing you white house and senate debates around the country. on c-span television networks c-span radio and c-span.org. tomorrow we're in west virginia for the debate between democratic governor earl ray tomlin and republican challenger bill moloti. live coverage starts at 7:00 p.m. eastern. wednesday, we move to massachusetts for the third debate between republican senator scott brown and his democratic challenger, elizabeth warren at 7:00 eastern. >> piquancy both of those
debates on line -- you can see both of those debates online as well. and thursday the only debate between the vice presidential candidates. coming up, tonight's debate between the senator from montana and his republican challenger. then, and look at efforts to stop the online sale of the legal prescription drugs. later, the religion news writers association examines religious freedom and the first amendment. >> our campaign 2012 debate hubble web site provides live and on-demand coverage of all the presidential and vice presidential debates, and it is the only place you will see behind the scenes coverage, before and after the debates. the site has the debate question available who has a separate court.
watch your creative clips and read streaming tweets from political reporters along with your questions. >> no, in montana care -- in montana, one of the closest senate races of the country. it is rated a toss up. this debate is courtesy of montana pbs. it is 90 minutes. >> here's tonight's moderator, steve prosinski. >> good evening and welcome to tonight's u.s. senate debate by billings gazette communication. i'm steve prosinski, editor of the gazette. many thanks to the chancellor, director of university relations, and many others, for providing a perfect venue for
this exchange of opinions and ideasbetween denny rehberg and senator john tester a democrat. three veteran montana voters -- reporters will ask questions. montana public broadcasting and c-span are broadcasting tonight's debate. yellowstone public radio are broadcasting our forum also and the gazette is streaming it live on gazette.com. our timekeeper is a 20-year-old senior from billings, majoring in accounting. he also is a student body vice president. each candidate will have one minute to answer a question, then the other candidate we have one minute to respond. a 32nd rebuttal -- 30 second
rebuttal will be allowed. each candidate will have two minutes for a closing statement. before we go to the questions, we all ask you hold your applause until off the closing comments. interruptions will eat into the time for the candidates and their responses. we're all here to listen to them, not each other. please respect them by holding your applause until the debate has ended. thank you. now to the question. we'll start with a question for senator tester. you'll have a minute to respond and representative rehberg will have a minute to comment and senator tester will have 30 seconds for a final response. >> good evening senator tester. i assume on november 6th, you will vote for president obama. i like to tell us why it's important and why his reelection and your reelection is good for mobs and -- montana. >> if you take a look at what he's done with osama bin laden and going things in the middle east.
he has taken care of the war on terrorism in a big way. that's been positive for the country. he took over the country was hemorrhaging 800,000 jobs a month. the job growth isn't where we want it to be we are starting to see job growth in the country and that's been positive. as far as myself is concerned, i think the level of responsibility and accountability that i brought to washington d.c. or in transparency are measured. i was the first person to put my schedule online, first person to do an audit and carry bills. they make the government of washington, d.c. look a lot like montana. montana's government is open. not only for folks like you mike and folks in the audience to be able access database that's tell people what's going on in washington d.c.
we are 2,000 miles away. often, access to those databases lets people know what is going on. it is critically important. i will not get into infrastructure or veterans. my time is up. >> thank you, senator rehberg, one minute. >> there are two paths we can take this in country. senator tester and president obama have taken one path. he's voted with president obama 95% of the time. what have that given us, it's given us healthcare reform. it did not reform health care. it added more people to a failed system. it gave us the failed stimulus. the only shovel ready project really funded in a large sort of way was adding additional trillion dollars debt on our middle class. it also gave us not necessarily an energy policy but an environmental policy. you don't have to look very far down the veto to see the closing plant. it will cost us 35 jobs. it's going to cost the city of billings over $10 million a year in income in the surrounding area.
it is going to add as much as 25% to our utility bills. that is the equivalent of shutting off the electricity to 100,000 homes. that's entire city of billings. that's the kind of economics we've gotten from the failed policy of president obama and from the failed policy of senator tester. >> congressman rehberg didn't answer the question why we should vote for him. the fact of the matter is, we had a broken healthcare system and we had to make some changes, and making sure people with people with preexisting condition have coverage. we have to hold insurance companies accountable. as far as the stimulus package goes, the shiloh road congressman provides avenue to get to one of your developments. it has been pretty important to billings.
the fact is that the work that was done, is critically important we're going to move forward. i hope to get to that plant somewhere in here, or i will address it later on. >> thank you very much. now tom to your question for representative rehberg. >> yes representative rehberg. you have criticized american recovery and reinvestment act, our also cut the ribbon on a road project that used stimulus. in february 2009, you credited yourself for securing $42.5 million for montana project and that year consolidated appropriation bill, that's according to your website. the very next day, you cried the $410 billion for wasteful spending. you have mostly voted the party line and accused your opponent of voting with barack obama 95% of the time. you also said we need to roll up our sleeve and work with solutions and put partnership aside.
that comment was made when you asked democrats in joining you to invite barack obama back to montana for a seventh time in two years, so you could talk about the opportunities and challenges facing our great state. representative, why should montana trust that you're the conservative that you now suggest that you are? >> if you think about the budget in america, we spent as much as $4.5 trillion. the difficulty is we bring in $3 trillion, and spend $4.50 trillion. we can set priorities. there's no reason we can't create an economic stimulus that's going to stimulate the economy. these are the "washington journal" numbers. a trillion dollars borrowed against the debate, the -- the debt, 12 cents on a dollar went to stimulus. but the difficulty --
difficulty, it went to things that was pure spending. if i go out on my ranch and they need to buy a new stock and it cost $15,000, i can assume i can return. otherwise, it is a peer expense. -- pure expense. that's the problem with this stimulus. it was pure expense. there was stimulative efforts, but it didn't create the jobs. it wasn't timely or targeted, it wasn't temporary. it doesn't stimulate the economy the way it intended. there were other ways to do it. could have done reduction in corporate tax. could have done it by extending the payroll tax on employers and employees that would have cost the same trillion. that would have put money in the pockets of every small business in america -- the chiropractor, the florist, the engineer, the farmer. they didn't get that. there was a way to stimulate the economy. this was not the way to do it. >> senator tester one minute. >> the recovery act, you want to talk about what it did. it gave $500 million in tax relief for working families and small businesses. across the board, $500 million,
that's for the state of montana by the way. that is not for the whole country. that's for the state of montana. $500 million. it made it so emergency folks like policeman, and firefighters and teachers can stay on the job because states were in bad a shape. thankfully montana was governed by brian, he had the state in a better shape. overall, the states were in as tough a shape as the federal government. we talked about shiloh road. the infrastructure projects all over the state. i talked to a worker in building curbs and working on water systems when projects being awarded. he said i wouldn't have had a job. we were losing about 800,000 jobs a month before the recovery act. after the recovery act, we saw that flatten out. we were on the cusp of a financial meltdown. >> nobody suggested we will not spend money.
government is necessary. we want police and fire, those are expenses. if it's going to stimulate the economy, you don't do it one time expense. you have to build, and grow and create jobs. how do you create jobs but unleashing the small businesses of montana and america. you don't do it by piling more debt. we're in fourth year over trillion dollars debt in this country. adding to our debt. since he's been a united states senator it doubled from $8 trillion to $16 trillion. we cannot continue down that same path. >> now question from jackie to senator tester. >> senator, this current session of congress has been dubbed by the pundits as the most partisan least productive in memory. even with the looming fiscal cliff and we're talking about the end of the bush era tax cuts, members of congress can't come up with a solution. why then should montana return you to the u.s. senate? what are you going to do to advance your vision for montana?
aren't they just voting for more of the same for another six years? >> well, jackie, thank you for the question. i will tell you, it is very partisan in washington d.c. it is very distressing. the press has reported correctly. in montana, where we have seen communities built together, it is distressing. quite frankly, washington d.c. can learn a lot from us in montana. we worked together and get things done. we put things aside. the jobs fact is a prime example, by the way. your question was about me. why? i will tell you why, i have worked across the line time and time again. whether it's to get capital available for small businesses. whether it's to delist wolves, work with mike simpson representative out of idaho. making sure banking regulation fit america. i will continue to work with people and honest fair way.
that is the way we do in montana, truthfully talking about the to challenges out there. we will come to teg. -- together. i have confidence after the election, we will come to an agreement. democrats and republicans. good ideas, both sides of the aisle. that's how this problem will be solved with the fiscal cliff. >> representative rehberg, one minute. >> i'm terribly -- that's i -- i am terribly disappointed with my efforts with the farm bill. i have done everything i could to move it forward. it did not come out of committee. that is why i oppose president bush, that's why i voted against the ryan budget. i didn't think it protected medicare enough. i worked across the aisle. i were to build a caucused with a liberal democratso the specific purposes of three for nutrition, education and early childhood and development. that's why i suggest when you vote with barack obama 95% of
the time, you can suggest that you're bucking the president, when you vote for it. everybody in menton and believes in that position, and so do i., the walls. -- wolves. ultimately under the decisions that mattered most, on things like a failed healthcare reform, on a failed stimulus and on energy policy voting for cap and trade, my opponent has voted for barack obama not bucking his own party, not showing the independence necessary to try and build a more secure future for the people of montana. he stands more with barack obama, i stand more with the people of montana. >> totally ridiculous. i'm going to tell you the fact is if you look at the record, for the last 18 months, the congressman wanted to run against barack obama. they try to morphed me into barack obama. barack obama don't want to see the exxon pipeline built i do. barack obama wanted to see the bailouts, i voted against the bailouts.
the list goes on and on. i put montana first in every decision i make because that's what's most important to me is taking montana's good ideas back to washington d.c., converting it to legislation, and getting it passed. >> now question from mike dennisson to represent rehberg. >> good evening congressman. you mentioned medicare, you criticized the medicare portion in the affordable care act, you voted against the ryan budget in his medicare plan. what's your medicare plan? i haven't heard much about it? >> you don't begin by taking $716 billion out of medicare. it is already a failing system. we have to do everything we possibly can to make it stronger. by taking $716 billion out of medicare, all you doing is forcing seniors to go under obamacare which will not work. it makes it much more difficult for doctors and hospitals to provide services to our seniors. the reason i voted against the ryan plan because it was a top- down idea.
it did not protect medicare recipients. my number one goal is to preserve and protect medicare for those that are on it. you don't do it by taking $716 billion out of medicare and hope that you will solve the issue or solve the problem. by paul ryan being selected as the nominee done what it will do. it has begun a 50-state debate. over the course of the campaign, you will hear more about medicare reform. ultimately hope to bring the ideas of montana back to washington. rather than a d.c. top-down solution. that is what i thought the ryan proposal was, and certainly is what the obama plan is. >> senator tester, one minute. >> only in washington d.c. when you take excessive payment to insurance payments and eliminate waste, fraud and abuse, that will be called a bad thing.
the fact of the matter is, not one benefit will be cut to medicare recipients. not one benefit. the fact of the matter is,we have been reimbursing insurance companies and provided no benefits to our seniors. it's time to sop that reimbursment and make this program good for generations to come. the i know the congressman doesn't like the affordable care act and obama, it extends medicare for eight years. we need to continue to look for ways to make medicare stronger. it's a safety net. it's important for our seniors. works for our seniors. we ought not become destroying it. quite frankly, you have not stepped forth with ideas on how to make medicare solvent for the future. >> representative rehberg, 30 minutes. >> you don't extend medicare by taking $716 billion out. did you hear what he said? he said benefits were not going
to cut. that's not the issue, the issue is doctors and hospitals will not be fairly reimbursed for seeing seniors. if president obama and senator tester say you will not lose your insurance under the healthcare reform, no, the problem is nobody will be able to give you that insurance. when they say you will not lose the doctor of your choice, the difficulty isthe doctor may not be able to see you. we must put that back by repealing obamacare. if by putting the money back into medicare, we can make it stronger and last longer and begin serious discussions of a bottom-up solution. >> question from tom to senator tester. >> yes senator tester, you frequently referred to as the only working farmer in the u.s. senate. trade issues by montana farm group, you have voted no. trade is important to montana because of the state's $1 billion year weed industry sell 85% of its product overseas. the state's billion dollar plus
cattle economy is depend on beef. >> opposed the south korea free trade agreement. -- you opposed the south korea free trade agreement. korea bought $189 million in non-farm products from montana in 2010. second only to canada. you voted against free trade agreements against panama and columbia. explain your opposition to these agreements. >> the trade agreements have to be fair and free. quite honestly we do have tremendous opportunity especially in state of montana. we raise the best thief, the best livestock, and the best brains in the world. -- grains in the world. but they have to be fair. we cannot allow other companies to dump their products on us. that's what i felt those free trade agreements would do exactly. i'm not opposed to trade at all. it's important that we do have trade but it can't be at our producers expenses. i felt those trade agreements were skewed toward the countries you mentioned. that's why i opposed them.
>> representative rehberg, one minute. >> towing the party line. the democrats asked him to vote against it and he vote against it. i showed the independence. i traveled to south korea. i voted for it. panama and columbia, and it was told us by them to listen and learn about the trade that could be done with them. you know what's interesting about that, since that time we've increased our agricultural exports to montana by 200%. i also travel to australia, and learned it was not in the best interest of our livestock producers. i bucked my own republican party and i voted no, the same is true with cafta. central america free trade was going to hurt our sugar
producers, right here. i voted against it. i showed the independence of traveling and learning and listening and finding out what is in the best interest of our producers. rather than towing the party line,i showed the independence of voting for those that were good for us and against those that i thought hurt montana. i didn't stand with my party, i stood with montana. >> senator tester. >> very quickly, i will say this, president obama wanted those trade agreements congressman. you stood with president obama on those trade agreements. forose to do what's right montana's producers. what we're seeing now are prices where we can afford a farm bill where farmers and ranchers don't have to go to the governmenttor get their check and they can get it from the marketplace. >> no, a question. -- now, a question. >> congressman, i like to go back to the claim that your opponent vote with president
barack obama 95% of the time and you said it repeatedly tonight that you're a maverick and you're an independent. the "washington journal" called -- "wall street journal" called year. they called you more conservative than 81% of your colleagues in the house. congressional quarterly say you joined your gop colleagues more than 93% times each year. how is that being a maverick when clearly you're partisan. can't the argument be made that you're not effective with your own party? you talked tonight about the failure to get the farm bill out of the house. why should montana send you instead to the u.s. senate? >> there's a difference between voting with barack obama and 95% of the time and voting on what i believe is the right interest. when he talk about agricultural producers, i heard from montana because i traveled all 56 counties continually that they wanted the trade practices with south korea.
that they wanted the trade practices, our wheat producers were losing ground with canada in columbia. they told me that. that's why i voted for those. while at the same time, much to my party, i did in fact, vote against the free trade. i'm fighting for the farm bill. i do not agree with my own leadership. i'm doing everything i possibly can to bring that bill on to the house floor. on the republican side, think given me chairmanship in one of the appropriations subcommittee. because i understand the human needs and i listen and learn. but i don't stand with president obama 95% of the time i stand with montana 100% of the time. >> it sounds to me you stand with obama quite bathe of the -- time because ofe
the trade agreement. montana is a big state. it is nothing out of the ordinary to go visit everyone. let's talk about that farm bill. let's talk about that farm bill for a second probably one of the most important jobs the congress has to do. the senate passed the bipartisan farm bill back in june with almost three quarters vote. it gives food security for the people in this country. it is a bill that make sense. it goes over to house, the congressman gives it lip service and it doesn't go further. i would still be in session with the senate until we got that farm bill passed. let's talk about the ryan budget for a second, it's important we talk about it. he talked about how he opposed it, he took the ryan budget numbers and that's what he budgeted off of. that is what he did in his subcommittee. let's be honest with the people of state of montana. let us be accountable to them. let us talk about the decisions you have been making. you have not been responsible.
>> representative rehberg, 30 seconds. >> anybody with the room believe i do not want to see a farm bill? you agree with it and i agree with it. if you did travel around the 56 counties and you did listen to those having livestock disaster assistance, we passed a disaster assistance livestock bill to the house of representatives that you couldn't get it through. you held it hostage for your five year farm bill. i want a farm bill as well. we agree on that. if you were listening to the people of montana, you know they wanted livestock mitigation. we could have done it. it passed the house of representatives. you didn't have the leadership ability to get that bill through. you played politics by holding it hostage. >> don't i get a 30 second rebuttal? >> that was his 30. >> well. [laughter] >> sorry, rules are rules. now it's time for each candidate to ask questions of the other candidate. representative rehberg what is your question for senator tester. >> i will ask the question, you support president obama 95% of
the time. that is the major issues. that is not necessarily standing with the people of montana. if you listen to the people of montana, they did not want obamacare. they did not see how the stimulus will work. they did not think the epa bureaucrats in washington, why -- should shut down the plant. council -- do you think president obama should be reelected? >> the point is congressman, you're running against me. this is the race. you're not running against president obama. you could have done that, but you chose not to. there's plenty of differences between myself and barack obama. tonight i'm trying to starting to figure out there's similarities between the congressman and barack obama. the fact is, if you go down the list, whether it is trade agreements, whether it is making sure the bailouts do not happen -- we have set the standard and
we've set the standard by listening to montana and doing what montana think is correct first. that's the bottom line. he can try to morph me into barack obama because that's what he wants to run against. look at the record, whether it's for veteran and infrastructure and transparency, the list goes on. votedaren't bills i just for, these are bills i sponsored and carried and i do want to talk about that farm bill for a second. that drought assistance you talked about, previously you say you got get that pass through the senate, the drought assistance that he wanted cost taxpayers money. the farm bill save money. >> thank you senator tester. mr. rehberg, one minute. >> i don't need to morph you into barack obama, you did it all by yourself. you listened to what he wanted and you voted for a failed stimulus and voted for cap and trade which is nothing more than energy tax. it is going to raise the cost of our utilities. it's going to cost us jobs and
oil gas and coal country of eastern montana. you supported the epa and their regulation that they're going to shut down the corette plant. that is going to cost 35 jobs. it is going to cost $10 million annually to the city of killings. it is going to increase your utility costs as much as 25%. it will mothball plants around the nation. that's not being independent voice. i've tried to be an independent voice for montana by bucking my own party when necessary and supporting my party when necessary. but ultimately traveled to the 56 counties to find out what the people of montana wanted me to do. that's why i voted against the president's healthcare reform because it's not a reformed healthcare. it is necessary we must reform healthcare, if you leave defense of medicine out of it, you haven't done a thing. ask the people of montana, they were told insurance premiums will go down $2500, they went up. it cost every member in montana $5000 for your experiment supporting the president. >> senator tester you have 30 seconds. >> i will say this, any time jobs are lost, that's a bad
deal. we're talking about epa regs been on the books for 20 years. with a talking about a company that made $1.60 billion in profits last year. the fact, they should invest in that plant. the problem is, congressman, you bring up stuff and hope it sticks. i did not vote for cap and trade. i voted for procedural motion to talk about energy policy in this country. we need to have a debate about that energy policy. we need to have a debate on cap and trade too. to make sure it work or not work for this country. there's plenty of things we need to debate for him to stand up here and list off a litany of things and pull them out of air, i guess it's a baloney. >> it is your turn to ask a question. >> thank you steve, congressman you've taken 15 trips in your tenure in congress.
taxpayer-paid trips. trips to australia and south america and europe and south pacific. you've eaten in castles and on boats and meal boats and gin bars and dealt with lobbyist. i'm sure the lobbyist and special interest got their money from taxpayer trips. what exactly do taxpayers of montana get? >> every trip i've taken has been the benefit of montana. i traveled to australia to find out why it was best of interest for me to vote for the australian free trade. and why they could make the endangered species act worked and we could not. why it was necessary to have the vote that i did. i learned about south korean trade. why did i travel to places like europe? i was honored in a bipartisan fashion for leading democrats in the house to give a keynote speak at normandy to honor our world war ii veterans.
it was at the presentation of a new memorial. you want to talk about lobbyist, you're the number one recipient of money for lobbyist. i look out at this room. everybody out here is represented by somebody in washington d.c. i accept their information, you accept their cash, $1.8 million in the last two years from lobbyist and wall street. i learn from people and listen to people, i don't take their cash while attacking them on other end. guyt's interesting for a who hit $25,000 in lobbyist money and he should have reported it and did not transparent about it. for a guy who has taken off tens of millions of dollars of money ad hoc. who's bought commercials for the last year in a half trying to define something i'm not. it's rich that you point this out. look, you are the one that was a
paid lobbyist. you were the one that told lobbyist that you depend on them to make your decisions. you the guy who said the revolving door isn't a big deal. it is a big deal. it is tough when you point a finger at somebody and three are pointing straight back at you. >> representative rehberg, you have 30 seconds to close. >> everybody in this room is represented by somebody in washington d.c. that provides information. i'm not so arrogant to believe that i know everything. i don't have to travel all 56 counties and learn about nuclear and wait refinement. i went to france and traveled across france. i am on the committee that has something to do with that. i traveled around america. i went to georgia and alabama to learn about coal fire generated plants from their perspective.
i learned about coal-to-liquid plants. i done everything i potentially can to educate myself but also to listen to people around america and around the world to ultimately make better decisions rather than going back to my farm every weekend. >> thank you congressman. question from mike dennisson to senator tester. >> senator tester, we've heard a lot tonight about what people are against. i want to talk about what you are. talking about the fiscal cliff. we have deep spending cuts and tax increases, what is your approach -- why is your approach better for the economy and why is your approach better than your opponents approach? >> i don't know your opponent's approach. you are going to ask a question to him in a second. the approach has got to be bipartisan. we've got to work together to solve this problem. we're talking about problem in the debt and deficit. the fiscal cliff comes at the first of the year. there is no doubt that if we don't work together, we are dead in the water. mike, there have been plenty of proposals out there that make
sense for this country. big broad based proposals. talked about many of them. they're the simpson-bowls and the list goes on. all sorts of gangs. the bottom line is those templates can be put together. it has to have everything in it, everything has to be addressed. people need to work together. i think there's critical minds in senate to get it done. when we talk about sequestration and the fiscal year, that was imposed on us a bipartisan way to get it done. we have to work together. it is easily fixed. like i said in the beginning, it's what montana do naturally. in washington d.c., we need to learn from montana. >> thank you representative rehberg, one minute. >> first thing we need to do is repeal obamacare. that will be the first action that we need to work on a bipartisan solution to the farm bill. what we really need to do as i travel around montana, the number one word i hear more than anything else, we need
certainty. we need to know what our taxes will be. i done everything i possibly can to eliminate the death tax. that is because of my own family situation, where we lived through the death tax and lost 1/3 of our farm. we have had to rebuild of on borrowed money. we need tax certainty, we don't need regulations continually dropping down. sequestration, i voted against subcommittee, to have 12 people go behind closed doors to solve fiscal crisis in america. that is ridiculous. we tried that with 45 of us. it wasn't going to work in the first place. sequestration is happening because senator tester supported sequestration and it will create a crisis at the end of the year. this is solvable. we can do it. you know what's interesting? not only do they take $716 billion out of medicare, another 2% will be taken out of america.
america cannot withstand that kind of reduction to medicare. it is going to destroy the system. sequestration can't happen. >> senator tester 30 second. >> i am probably responsible for the drought in the southwest as well. >> here's the deal congressman. you voted against sequestration and you voted two years in the budget. you vote for this country to default on our debt. just about every economist in this country said that would have sent us into a depression immediately. that was a year ago last august. the bottom line is, we don't start working together in washington d.c., we're going to continue to have single digit approval ratings. i would be right there voting with everybody else in the single digit. we have a good people back there that have worked together on other issue that's are critically important. cooler heads will come together and we'll get that problem solved. it will be solved in a way to works for the country short term and long term. theongressman, what's biggest lie that's been told about you in this election cycle?
what will you say to set the record straight? >> i haven't really thought about the biggest lie. what i really think i want to be portrayed as somebody who cares deeply about montana. i'm not sure that comes through in the advertisement against me. i listen and travel around the counties. i have tried to be an independent voice. what i would have done, i would have tried to extend the payroll tax on employers and employees. every small business could have benefited from that. that includes the newspapers, radio stations, and tv stations making all the money from the ads against us. i wanted tax certainty. i deeply care about the future not just of our children but i look at my mom and dad who are in their golden years because the investments are not coming back because of the recession
and we're not turning this economy around as much as possible, i care deeply about trying to change the direction that we're talking about these two avenues. the avenues of my senator opponent has taken and myself who believes there's a different path and better path one that will create a better opportunity for not just my children and grandchildren but my parents as well. >> i definitely want to keep coming back to recovery act. there was $500 million for tax relief for working families. what creates economy? demand. that $500 million went to working family pockets. there's plenty of lies said about me from the beginning to end. for the last 18 months, we had continual emerging in them. -- immersion in them. the most interesting one was the one that gave me five fingers on my left hand. i thought i was going to get
them and be able to play basketball again. the wide receiver. last week, they sent out a flier that had my face on the picture on the body of rick santorum. it didn't take long to figure that out. the bottom line is this, i pride myself in taking montana back to washington d.c. and working with people. i don't care if they're democrats or republican or independents. it's too bad we didn't have a libertarian on the stage tonight. i don't care if it's libertarian either. the bottom line is people work together. they have tried to make me something i am not in many areas. you get things done when you work across party lines. things get done in the middle, not on the fringes. >> representative rehberg, you have 30 seconds. >> if you want to talk about false advertising. they put my head on a silver platter in one ad. one ad shows me as the grim raper. everybody is playing that game. it is not unique to he, and those attacking him.
what i find interesting when we talk about bipartisan, they talked about leadership and getting things done, what about the fact the senate hasn't passed a budget. frankly, that is illegal, but that does not seem to matter. let's see a bill. let's see a budget. let's roll up your sleeves across the table and do it in a transparent way. you know what's interesting to me? over the course of 2009 when they had single party rule, they passed obamacare, they passed stimulus and they passed additional $1 trillion in spending. that is $3 trillion in new spending. and the appropriation committee never met once. we didn't have a single hearing. that means no public input, that means no opportunities for amendment. that did not give us the opportunity for you to have your say. that's not transparency. that's what we got with single party rule. we haven't had a budget out of the senate in over three years. >> we have. you voted against it. >> now, we have a question from jackie to senator tester. >> senator, congress designated a number of tax deductions. people call this loopholes,
things like market interest or charitable contribution. it allows contributions to 4 01 k's to be a pre-tax. lawmakers often talk about closing loopholes but it often means standing up to special interest and this includes the middle class. do you favor closing loophole and if so, specifically which one? >> that's a great question jackie. i will tell you if you take a look at the simpson-bowls proposal brought out, it talked about income tax specifically about income tax brings in $1 trillion. there is about $300 billion put out. look, we can reduce some of those tax earmarks and get down to a point where quite frankly we can lower the rate and actually bring in more revenue and make it more simple.
i think that is one of the challenges with the debt and the deficit. it is an opportunity there too. i think the housing deduction is important. it's critically important economic driver. i know there are things in that bill. there are tax earmarks that have been on the books to the big oil companies. i'm talking about the drilling cost. i'm not talking about tax breaks been in the books since 1913 for the exxons of the world. those could be taken off. they are doing fine. on the other side of the coin, the folks out there and doing the wildcatting, the folks out there making difference, let's look at those. let's take a look at what drive our economy and what's not necessary anymore. if you take a look at -- my time is up. >> representative rehberg, you have one minute. >> unlike my opponent, i do not support simpson-bowles.
how many times have you heard, "if you would just let us raise taxes, which would cut spending "? what the simpson-bowles does -- it increases gas tax by 15%. it eliminates the home mortgage deduction. it was a promises made when you took out a mortgage and the value of your home maybe in relation what you pay in your tax. i believe in flat tax. i think ultimately we could move toward the flat tax. we need a simpler system. we need a tax system that is easily done and easily understood and i will begin by helping those senior citizens with their income taxes for the purposes of making simpler for them. i got to tell you, people support reform, as long as it doesn't change anything. it will be difficult to work towards tax reform. i'm fighting for a flat tax. that is the best way to go. >> senator tester.
>> the question becomes housing deductions and charitable deductions study maintain when you have the flat tax. but that is not the point. i will say something that we agree on. if we play politics with this, we will never get anywhere. we have to work together on this to reform our tax structure in this country. if we put guard heads together -- good heads together, we can get rid deduction. -- of the deductions that make no sense whatsoever, and they do not drive our economy. it would help us pay down our national debt. >> thank you, now a question from mike dennisson to representative rehberg. >> let's keep talking about taxes. you mentioned the federal and state taxes or you call the death tax and your wish to repeal it. the current tax does not apply to any inheritance income less than $10 million. also family farmer ranch can avoid this tax. the amount in federal debt, why is it a priority for you to cut the income taxes for the few folks inheriting more than $10 million?
>> i will correct your numbers at the end of this year, it goes back to a million dollars. and it goes up to 55%. if you are trying to enrich yourself on inheritance, you are going to have an opportunity to pay your fair share. you're either going to pay a capital gains tax or income tax. why do the federal government believe it's necessary to cut into the ability of a family put a business together to generate tax revenue for their public officials? why do they feel it's necessary? it is not necessary. it's an insidious tax that hurts small business. it doesn't matter whether it's 10% or 55%. 10 million or 1 million. it's not necessary and it's not right and it should be eliminated. >> senator tester. >> take a look at the fiscal condition we have in this country right now. we have to make choices. my choice is to make sure we make that $5 million per person, $10 million per couple,
35% tax rate permanent. index it sold -- so it doesn't drop back. what's really important with the inheritance tax and death tax, it's bounced all over the place. it's $5 million one day and $2.5 million the next and it's been bounce all over. you cannot plan for that. if it's made permanent, people can plan for it. people in agriculture can plan for it. small businesses can plan for it. they can put life insurance over that figure. it makes sense for them to do it. it's got to be made permanent. 5 and 10 is a sweet spot. it exempts almost everyone. almost every farm and flanch this state. >> representative rehberg, 30 seconds. >> tax problem in this country is spending problem. if you listening to what he's suggesting, he's suggesting we need to continue tax of a death of a loved one to feed a government that's out of control.
why don't we control government first fax -- first? that is what i support. i believe that we should put into permanent effect the tax relief for 2001 and 2003. i believe death tax should be zero. because it gives certainty. hears the biggest thing i as i travel around montana, they don't know what their taxes will be. they don't know the effect of obamacare on them. is it going to cost them more to provide health insurance for their employee. is the employee possibly going to lose their health coverage from their employer? the whole uncertainty is created by the fiscal cliff because they have backed introduce a spending corner that is going to be so hard to dig our way back out of. now is the time. >> time is up. >> now a question from tom to senator tester. >> yes, senator. in april of 2011, you removed wolves from the federal and endangered species list. that happened in five states,
including montana perianth it involved -- in montana. it included a rider. the rider band -- the move was decried by environmentalist, it was self-interest political move to endangered species act. some fear lawmakers to endanger species act protection. what do you tell montana who voted for new 2006 but oppose your act actions to delist wolves? >> there was a recovery effort on wolves and it worked. we ought to be doing back flips on that. they are recovered. now let's manage them. they no longer need to be on the endangered species list. let us manage them like we do dearer. deer.o it took a lot of work to get this done. there were a lot of folks out there -- the administration being one -- that really didn't want to see this happen.
we worked and we worked together with folks on both sides of the aisle. we worked with conservationist that understood that wolves will recover. we worked with folks with the livestock industry and this was the right thing to do. it's fine to make decisions but you need to go back and monitor those decisions. it really goes back to jackie's question on earmarks. we ought to go back and monitor and see what is not doing right. we monitored the wolves on the endangered species list. we got that done by working with republican out of idaho. >> representative rehberg, one minute. >> wolf recovery is a perfect example is what's wrong with the endangered species act. i worked in 2005 when we passed legislation in the house of representatives to reform the endangered species act. so we know where the end zone was so we would know when we recovered a species, it will be delisted. this was not a decision made by obama administration. it was a judge who reversed the position who changed the future of wolf recovery.
it changed the goal posts. what we need ultimately need we needed an endangered reform act. it's not working for the betterment of the endangered species and there's nobody in this room, nobody in montana that wanted to endangered species. that want species to disappear from the face of the earth. the point is we need certainty. we need to work together to delist it. turn management back over to the state. the solution and compromise came up was stopgap. it should be delisted. it still allows the u.s. fish and wildlife service to have an influence. the management should be sent back to the state as we have proposed in my legislation. >> the problem is, legislation didn't make it out of committee. still setting there. we got a bill we can get bipartisan support for and get passed. it was done after talking with sportsmen and livestock producers and conservationist across the board.
it was the right thing to do for the wolves. it was the right thing to do for montana. we got it done. >> now a question from jackie from representative rehberg. >> congressman, i just can't leave the topic of taxes. the argument against raising taxes on the wealthy it's going to hurt the job creators. according to the montana department of revenue just under 1% of montana household hit that threshold $250,000 a year. for 2003, montana legislature cut the top marginal tax rate. but economist can find no evidence that this tax cut has led to more jobs. jobs grew in the 1950s and 1960s when the marginal tax rate were higher than they were today. where are the job creators as the result of tax cuts for the wealthy? >> tax and cut, tax and spend? which is better? it tells you if we borrow money -- why government
feels it need to take our money away from us? if we have opportunity to invest it in job creation? why can't the government learn to balance its budget? why can't the government tighten its belt like everyone out here in this audience has to but this government does not want to. we're not going to be able to cut spending enough to balance the budget. we need to grow the economy in the way you grow the economy, you take every last dime out of the economy. you let that money stay in and circulate and grow and create the jobs necessary and build that more secure future. you cannot continue to tax your way into prosperity. you can't spend your way into prosperity. small business is the solution if you get the government off the backs. you can't in fact, have more people hired, keep those that already have jobs and expand our economy. you don't do it by raising taxes
during a recession. >> well, the fact is if you want to talk about job creation what creates job. you right, it is the small businesses. it's not the multimillionaires like yourself that create the jobs. it's the small business people and they need to get the deduction. they need to get the reduction. working families need to get the reduction. the work families are the folks that create the demand that cause more manufacturing and more economy. quite honestly, we're not talking about tightening our belt.
the belt will be tightened in a battleground -- big way. the folks making millions and millions of dollars ought to be contributing tot coiffures. >> representative rehberg. >> feed the beast. more government, bigger government, continue the same government. rather than trying to create the efficiencies, the effectiveness can be made, all they want to do is add more money. i can solve the fiscal crisis. i have legislation introduced that will cut $1.4 trillion. we have social security and medicare that's going broke in this country and we're setting up creating two new entitlements for the president's healthcare reform? does that make any common sense that you will create two new entitlements?
>> now a question from mike dennisson. >> senator tester you strongly send conservation group. congressman rehberg you strongly supported by oil and gas. >> if you take a look at the xl pipeline, there's a lot of conservation groups out there that don't want to see that built. the fact, we talked about regulation here tonight. there needs to be a level of regulation out there. it can't be crazy. we need to insert montana common sense into that. sometimes i bucked the conservation groups in that. sometimes i buck other entities. we have to do what is right for montana. my record proven on that. whether it's wolves, there's another one. some conservation groups were crazy about that. it was the right thing to do. >> senator tester is the number one lobbyist for wall street money.
i guess i'd ask you, who produces and provides more jobs in the state of montana? the oil and gas entry or wall street? the oil and gas entry does. they support me, we will help build that more secure future for montana, this comes out of the oil, gas and coal fields of eastern montana to be sent to be redistributed some of the area that's are strongly supporting him. the question becomes, is there a balance? i'm a rancher by trade. i clearly understand you need economic development. you also going to protect areas. there are going to be areas you want to protect the wildlife. there are areas where you need to make a living.
that's where sometimes the extreme environmentalist don't understand. those in montana need to make a living.ly stand with the oil, gas and coal counties with the people of montana. >> senator tester. >> i -- the fact, you can pull this stuff out of air and throw it around. it doesn't meet the test of truthfulness. we need to have everything. agriculture, oil and gas, natural resources. we can -- our recreation economy is $3 billion on year in this state. to make sure we have opportunities for recreation. don't tell me it can be one industry. it's got to be a whole bunch of industries out there. moving forward and making sense for this state and country. >> now we've run out of time for questions. we will give each candidate two minute for a
closing statement about their campaign to be montana's representative and the u.s. senate. senator tester will go first followed by representative rehberg who will have the last word. >> i want to thank you and the panel and everybody that's here in the auditorium tonight and everybody watching on tv. i appreciate you're interested in this race. how many people in this audience are from the city of billings? raise your hand. congressman rehberg served each and every one of you. i want to tell you something, i've talked about
montana a lot together, the first thing you do when firefighters come, you got to grasp and put it out and they put their butt on the line. you don't respond by filing a lawsuit. thanks not moving your community forward. it's been a pleasure for the last six years. i meet incredible people. tommy a veteran in afghanistan. lost both legs and the best part of his left hand to an explosion. to see tommy parker and how he wants to go forward, he's have prosthetic legs. those people give me the drive for this job. those kind of people motivate me. we've got a great record war we've done, we were able to work across party lines. there's issues of our national debt and there's issues of jobs. there's issues to access the public plans. there's issues of healthcare. all of these are critically
important as we move forward. you're going to get your absentee ballots starting tomorrow. you will vote on november 6th. i appreciate your vote. >> representative rehberg, your two minute close. >> to the people of billings, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to represent you in the united states congress. i travel around montana over the course of last two years, nobody brought up the fire except for you. they talk about the irresponsible decision-making that goes with supporting president obama and 95% of the time on things like the obamacare, things like the failed stimulus. people of billings, it's the loss of the plant when it shuts down, you lose 35 jobs and you lose $10 million her year to -- per year to your schools. that's the real cost of what his policies are bringing.
you have two pads and two candidates. you have two avenues to take. one is a government solution. the belief the government can bring you a job. the, who believes we can revitalize, reenergize, redo and renew the enthusiasm for america in montana. if we could just get government out of our way. it is creating our uncertainty. it is not just small businesses. it is those who work for those businesses who are also going to help us remove the enthusiasm of creating a more secure future, a better opportunity for ourselves, our children, our businesses. i look people in the eye in montana and i do not see statistic. we do not want to talk about the unemployment state wide.
their own desire for their own future. in liberty county, it might be agriculture. in lincoln county, -- eastern montana, unlike the oil and coal. i want government out of the way. i want people to the opportunities, the same opportunities we have had and never parents have had. i want to return that enthusiasm to montana, to build a more secure future for the people of montana by government -- getting government out of the way. [applause] >> that wraps up -- [applause] many thanks for these two candidates. good night. >> see the price presidential debate this thursday night live
on c-span, c-span radio, and online. watch and engage. coming up, a look at efforts to stop the sale of a legal prescription drugs. then, the religion news writers association examines religious freedom and the first amendment. coming up tomorrow, a discussion on the economy and campaign 2012. the heads of commerce, business roundtable, national association of manufacturers, look at what they see as the most important business issues this election cycle. you can see it live starting at 8:30 eastern on c-span 2. tomorrow, a look at the obama administration's auto industry. it will be live starting at 9:00
a.m. eastern on c-span 3. >> this government, as promised, has maintained the closest surveillance of the soviet military buildup on the island of cuba. within the past week, unmistakable evidence has established the fact that a series of offensive missile sites is now in preparation on that in prison island. the purpose of these bases can be none other two -- than to provide a nuclear strike capability against the western hemisphere. >> do you deny that the u.s.s.r. has placed and is placing missiles in sites in cuba. yes or no? >> 13 days, live sunday from the jfk presidential library museum.
historians, scholars, filmmakers, and journalists on the cuban missile crisis. cocotte 30 p.m. eastern on c- span 3's history tv. >> the vice president of men's health networks said 95% of prescription drugs sold on-line are only containing 30 -- he spoke about efforts to increase public awareness. this is 40 minutes. few chairs left.
good morning, we are extremely excited about today's event. i can say, about four years ago, we had an idea that maybe we should start to have a washington conference to discuss the issues going on with drub -- drug safety. it is great to see that it keeps growing each year. i hope that is more about the growing interest but the war is going on, but i think it has to do with the latter. the point is to have these kinds it isversations and important to patients around the globe. this is designed to help determine the solutions. the partnership for safe medicine is bringing together stakeholders' like you to share ideas and information on the world to work to solve the global problem.
we believe that by working together, we can come one step closer to protecting the y chain.utical supplie and all of today's panels will be short, quick presentations. the opportunity is about you and the dialogue. to make sure everyone has an opportunity to engage, we ask that you hold off questions until the panels are complete. we want to make sure we get through these talks. i would now like to introduce my colleague, a longtime champion of these issues. he is the director of the center for economics at the university of texas pharmacy and currently serves as our president. please welcome in joining him to the podium. [applause]
>> good morning. all of the small -- smiling faces. and thank you, scott. as he mentioned, i am the chairman of the partnership for safe medicine. my home is austin, texas. has been an eventful year. this year, we hope that the focus on the progress we have made to date and what we will have to do in the future. we are focusing on a complicated world of pharmaceutical grain market. i must add the black market, too, which has a hand and all the counterfeit drugs we hear about today. earlier this year, two roche products, cancer therapies, and were found the cat -- counterfeited in the united kingdom and united states.
in may, the fda found out a version of our role is on the market. possiblerong apar very harmful. we gather putting an end to the incidences' like these and place safety as a top priority for manufacturers, suppliers, and contributors. also, we want to focus on the role of education in counterfeiting, adding that the crime. -- counterfeiting combating the the crime. earlier this year, the partners of the global intellectual property centered help draw attention to the danger of drugs with the debut of an awareness video. i do not know if you saw it on
the web site. it was shown in times square. education is very important. only with education can we decrease the demand. education has to be the forefront of what we are doing. with that, we are excited today to bring to gather a variety of expert panelists to talk about the importance of safety, the great achievements we have made, and the goals we must tackle. i certainly want to thank everybody for supporting us by being here today. i want to thank all of cover speakers and all of the responses for being here today. to expand the problems that the promise suitable pre-market possessed -- pharmaceutical premarket possesses, i present the opening speaker, scott williams. he is the president of the men's health network, a nonprofit organization whose mission is to reach men and their families
with health prevention messages and tools. screening programs, education materials, advocacy opportunities, and patient navigation. earlier this year, the partnership for safe medicine and men's health network collaborated on an info graphics program. it helped shed some light on many points about counterfeit medications. from erectile dysfunction drugs for men to hair loss products for men, drug counterfeiters like to target men'. to tell you a bit more about the initiative, i would like to introduce you to scott williams. welcome. [applause] >> good morning. how is everyone today? thank you so much for the kind introduction.
thank you so much for having us. has been a pleasure to be a partner for the past several years. i am very excited to be here with you guys today to share the story of what is going on in men's health, what is the impact of current medications on men and women and their families, and what should we do here as advocates. with that, i'd like to start. i want to tell you a little bit about us as an organization. our mission is to reach out to men and their families where work, play, and pray. to really get the word out about men's health issues across the country in a way that men can understand and that they are comfortable in an environment a trust. -- they trust.
i was hoping you guys might oblige me by raising your hands with a response to the first question. my first question is how many of you received daily e-mails encouraging you to go online to buy by agra, silas, and the judge? -- levitra. so virtually everyone. when you think about it, how many of these kinds of e-mails and solicitations encourage you to go find some online solution? i did a quick search for my e- mail. i had 66 e-mails over a monthly span encouraging me, as a man, to go on-line and purchase some sort of solution prescription or therapy that would help to perform better or compete better or live a healthier lifestyle. the message is getting out there. what is the message and where is it leading men, all women, and families? is it a credible sites?
is it a credible resource? my question is how many of them are authentic and safe medications for men and women and their families. what we have seen its 40,000 websites are peddling a legend prescription drugs. studies show 95 percent of them are illegitimate and unsafe. what can we do working together to combat this issue and this problem? i wanted to point out a recent article that was published here on some timbre 5. it does a nice job of dialing into the issues a little bit greater. we found an analysis of pills from 22 different websites showed they were selling drugs such as by agra and see alice -- viagra and cialis. 77% of samples were fake. they contend only 30% to 50% of the active ingredient and listed
on the label. what is the impact on men? if a man is consuming these products, it means they are investing in some cases fertilizer, printer ink cartridge material and solution, or paint? what is this doing to men, our families, and to people across the nation? what has been happening? i want to share personal stories of what we have seen in the network. what is the impact? the first example is a man from wichita, kansas, who died from an accidental overdose. and e.r. doctor who suffered a stroke from the counterfeit died medication he had purchased online. when you look at what is going on in our community, the fda reported nearly 400 convictions of rigid convictions of criminals around this issue of
counterfeit medication. this impact is huge and is impacting families across the nation. what does this mean and why is it important? when we look at this issue, at counterfeit and metaphysic -- counterfeit medications, the health and well-being of men and their families, guys have enough challenges. they do not need more challenges. when you look at the data, the data essentially speak for itself. men are leading in nine out of 10 causes of death. men are living about five years less than the female counterparts. clearly, we are already facing a ton of barriers, turtles, when it comes to improving the health and well-being of men, boys, and their families. why should we have to deal with issues surrounding counter
medications? counterfeit medications. our goal is helping patients, caregivers, understand the dangers of unsafe medication. our goal is to empower patients to work closely with health-care providers and making sure they are having informed conversations with their physicians about prescription drugs and where to go to make sure they are getting the say, legitimate charities. our goal is -- safe, legitimate therapies. get the word out, collaborate with so many of you who deal -- to care about this issue. -- who care about this issue. is our time month of year to educate people about
health issues they need to know more about. we partner in a unique way. this is our first time putting together an info graphic to tell the story of what counterfeiters are trying to export -- exploit. we have don here. it points out nine issues. we see erectile dysfunction. obesity. cancer. diabetes, etc.. this info graphic helped us better tell the story. it is where we are partnering with over 3500 organizations across the country to better speak about these kinds of issues. this info graphic was spread throughout social media, on facebook, on twitter, on our used to channel.
-- our youtube channel. people were able to relate with our guy here and the challenges he was facing. what have we seen work? as we work to tackle issues, we have seen the multidisciplinary has worked. joining up with public health, federal agency partners, that is a win-win-win, nation. also, involving like-minded organizations, but not for getting there are so many non- traditional partners who may not have the issue in their mission, however, care very deeply about the issue. i know many veterans organizations, senior organizations, and unions getting involved in the debate.
we can continue to expand on a voice is weighing in. i think we have seen some best practices with an organization called one voice against cancer. it was -- the goal was to stop having organizations come to partners across the country and saying a different thing. it is to come to gather under one banner to affectively rally our voice and speak with one voice about the issue. that is what we have done effectively here working together with tto tell the storh one voice as advocates. what is the call to action? for all of the organizations, for patient advocacy groups, what do we need to do next? the onus is upon us as leaders to do a couple of things i want to highlight today. the first is to engage our grass roots. let's engage our volunteers to
spread the message. our organization has chapters in all 50 states. what can we do as an organization? what can we do to join up of organizations like us to spread the message. ? when you get the no answer that this is not a priority, that is the beginning of the conversation. it really means maybe. do not give up. keep fighting. leverage every contact we have. in the world we live in, it is a and byn men with scarce resources. how do we pull together and work effectively to pull our collective resources and do everything we can to make a difference? to sum it up, i believe by working together, as and a sword .hat we really can wor
thank you very much. [applause] >> ok. let's open up for questions. this energetic young man up here. he is fun to work with. the organization has energy and drive. this organization definitely wants to go after something. any questions? >> where do get one of those t- shirts? >> give me a call. >> any questions? no questions. come on, now? yes, ma'am. want to ask a little bit more about the nontraditional partners. mention the work with unions. a handful of other organizations. can you talk more about that and
what you are hearing from those organizations and their awareness on the issue? what do they know and how do you reach them? great question. one of our key learnings is that awareness is extremely low. engaged with a lot of nontraditional partners out there. what we have seen that is effective is to put it in a way that our constituency can understand, to put it in india -- it to make them understand. talking about personal stories and being able to relate it back to specific stakeholder groups we have working -- we are working and. -- in. even some of your own providers and physicians need to know more.
being able to tell the story to the veteran community. being able to relate it back in a way people can understand, sharing personal stories, and effectively leverage and voices. that is very powerful. >> any other questions? no questions. quiet group this morning. time for all -- time for another cup of brewed. [laughter] i want to turn you back over to scott. [applause] >> i am not scott. i just pretend to be. my name is brian. i am the vice president of the
partnership for venison. part of our mission is research. we need to provide information to policy-makers and future of folks who are in the world to have this problem of fake drugs. part of our mission of doing that is to support the fellowship. carl was the second fda commissioner. the first to start evidence- based regulations. we thought that would be an appropriate name for our fellowship. it is great that he was a physician doing this work. he had a very interesting perspective. he would try all of the drugs himself first to check out they were safe. i cannot advocate that today. please do not tell margaret i said that.
it is my privilege to integers -- to introduce a faculty member at the university california medicine. he has published more than 60 articles on drug safety and global health. he is the leading authority on global health around a world. in addition, he is a very well sought after in terms of presentation. most recently, harvard medical school. you might think a guy like this, he is probably 60. he is only 32 years old. remember 32? [laughter] i cannot remember that. it was way too long ago.
with that, i would introduce our mackey.tim [applause] >> i always have to lower the mike. i want to thank the professor for that wonderful introduction. i am still working on my studies. the support is really important for me to pursue this particular type of research. also, to feed my nine-month year-old son. i want to thank them for this support. i want to talk about social media and unlisted online pharmacies. i want to open it up for a quick question. how many of you guys hear our facebook users? raise your hand. wow. how many of you added facebook
in the last two or three years? a lot of you guys are early adopters. as you can see, facebook and other types of social media are becoming big in our lives and how we function as a global society. so, i want to talk about the internet first and how it has changed our global society in its overall use an impact. approximately two billion people use the internet worldwide. 51% of people are looking for health information online. that indicates a lot of people are using -- using the internet as a health information portal. within the subset of 2 million -- 2 billion, we have 950 by people using facebook along. if it were a country, it would be the third largest country in the world. it is becoming a more and more important part of our lives. we understand facebook was part
of the arab spring. twitter was part of the arab spring. we are talking about e- diplomacy, statecraft, with some calls diplomats using social media. it is becoming more and more important in our lives today. what i will be talking about today are the risks associated with the social media format. unfortunately, we will talk about the use of social media by enlisted online pharmacies. the majority you hear on facebook and a lot of internet pharmacies are also using facebook now to market their products. there are certain risks associated with pharmaceutical marketing. the fda has had problems regulating this. you can understand that. there is so much diversity in social media platforms. facebook is different from twitter. twitter is different from my space. these things evolve over time. it is hard -- hard to regulate.
it is difficult to address this emerging technology. when a patient says a madison harmed them, is that report will to the fda? we have patient confidentiality and issues about how do we deal with misleading information posted by different types of users, a consumer, and potentially another illicit actor. what we are talking about today is how and listed online pharmacies use of social media format. what led us to this is we're looking at pharmaceutical companies to see what their presence was on social media and how they are using it. academic can sometimes be behind the curve. we found a lot of pharmaceutical companies using social media. no big surprise. we just reported this last year. what we found that was very interesting is we also found
illicit links to know prescription online pharmacies when we did our surges. we found about 90% of the top marketed drugs in the u.s. had illicit online pharmacy link associated with them. st of show you pictures. this is a facebook site. they are advertising no prescription drugs on line. this is a twitter post that offers without a prescription. this is another online pharmacy with social media links imbedded with it. we have done additional research looking at the epidemiology of the web on how much and what types of medicines are available on-line. we found fda shortage drugs are available on-line. that is a public health risk. should not be available on-line
at those low prices if it is a shortage. a lot of these products have to be shipped via cold storage. if you are getting a vaccine in the mail, you are probably sells injecting it without supervision. that is dangerous. we have also seen contraceptive devices. i will plug in our in progress. unfortunately, you have you to videos showing people how to insert contraceptive devices, which is also dangerous. screening tests are available on-line. there are citations in case you need sleep or are traveling to a different times on. that will get you to sleep quickly. what you wanted to explore was the idea of once marketing gets on the internet, it is no longer limited to geographical boundaries. we wanted to explore if that was the case. wanted to explore how accessible
and easy it was to access this form of marketing via social media. the best way to do that is to basically join the party. that is what we did. we designed a study where we identified the four top pharmaceutical social media types, facebook, a sweater, google plus, my space, and then we posted our own web ad on it and we like it to a social media site and then we tracked what the traffic was and where the visitors were coming from. we want it to commit -- to remain relatively competitive. it is not the best at out there. it says, no prescription, safe drugs. that is an oxymoron. anyway, we try to message like other advertisements the sock. a fake seal. we advertise lowest price because we thought that would be compelling.
we were worried about dmca. we wanted an image we could use commercially. i took a picture of some medicines in my medicine cabinet and soda fountain. what we did was we created the ad. we then posted it on a social media site. this is our facebook site. it is still available as of last night. we stopped data collection. if you want to offend us, that is fine. we created a link that is purported to sell prescription drugs. the major findings of the study were that three out of the four illicit social media sites we created are still up. i will provide you with the url. they were never taken down. traffic wise, we generated about 78 to 97 unique users per month for the different sites.
accessibility, our sights were very descriptive. the previous one was no prescription online pharmacy. that were the -- that was the types of terms we used to describe the sites. low-cost. we are talking keeping it cheap, about $80 per site. these are the url's. the facebook site. here are some descriptive statistics. one of the more major findings we found was this form of marketing did go -- did go global. we found a predominant number of traffic was from the u.s.. we are the largest prescription drug market. in total, we generated user attracted -- traffic from 18
different countries. some deviation in the traffic that occurred amongst the 10 months. it is not exactly the same. there is differentiation in the traffic. here is a chart of the different countries we got. the most important thing to see here is we did see a mix of high income, middle income, and emerging markets. some of the limitations of our study, which is where in the scientific literature it sets up what the limitations of your study art. they are interesting and informative. we had one site taken down. our google + site. we heard from anecdotal evidence that a lot of sites are taken down for various reasons. our site was called a no prescription online pharmacy side, and if it was because of that, that is in permission we could use for future enforcement and future surveillance for these types of sites. different types of user types. ts, etc.ers and web bough
that is still important because it indicates the site is being actively search and will be on a search engine. we had relatively low traffic. we were trying to go for about a s per side.it one of the reasons we did not have as much traffic is we did not have a working site, so no repeat visits. it is a competitive environment. you have to put in money to get money. we were among other competitors, as well. you can see from the top. there is another facebook site uses a bit more aggressive marketing. we were not prepared to do that at this point. the bottom picture shows a baby, when it comes to mislead gant --
misleading, i show -- i draw the line with babies. we did have competition. that is why i think we had low traffic. there are other sites available. the primary findings from the study are, and it is a preliminary study, so we would like to follow but up with a more analytic study, is that it is possible, with little experience or academics, we are not computer scientists, to create our own add and posted on a social media site, still available, and this form of media did go to global patients worldwide. but some lessons we can learn from this particular study are that there should be some level of accountability for service providers. facebook just went through the ipo. you are probably not too happy with them if you are a shareholder. they have some cash on hand. perhaps they should be looking
at this from a public health and safety -- safety issue. surveillance is important. this form of market and media could act as a surveillance tool for law enforcement -- law enforcement and public health officials. is it possible we could integrate accreditation with in this form of marketing? that is a larger question to ask. facebook's terms and conditions say you cannot be an online pharmacy on facebook on bless you are certified, but we do not know what that certification requires, and our site is still up. and cooperation. if this is a surveillance methods, you should be providing this information to the manufacturers, chief public health officials, and law enforcement to actively follow up. i will and the presentation. if you want more information, you can contact myself. i do not know if we have enough time for questions. we would be happy to take them. i want to thank the partnership
for safe medicine for their support and a professor and the institute of health studies and all his leadership in our particular research. thank you very much. [applause] >> i have a softball question. hopefully. one of the things you mentioned about social media, we have four or five different ones. there are two questions i want to ask. first, we are seeing a shift towards social media. our search engines out of the game? are they combined with other efforts? the second is i noticed that china was number two on the list. the question is, can that ranking be relied upon?
we cannot track with china is doing. my question is, how valid is that? is that a valid number. should we be relying on the china number? those are my two questions. >> ok. the first one and second one i remember. the first question, being that, is this a movement away from search engines. i do not think internet pharmacies are that static. i think they are dynamic actors. they are business people try to make money. there is a lot of money to be made. they will attack e-commerce from all the angles they can. search engine optimization, indexing their site, a robust marketing campaign, which we did not do. that will include social a medimedia. the problem i have is we have an oversaturation of youth and adolescents in the social media space. there is potential exposure to
this form of illicit marketing that is not controlled and could indicate or relate to nonprescription use of medications, which is a public health crisis right now in the u.s.. i think they ever -- they are very dynamic in the marketing. i think social media is a very important aspect of that. it is relatively cheap. because social media relies on friends and links and stuff like that, you tend to take the information more at face value. james is doing some great work on social media and social networking. this is an emerging form. i do not think they are limited to that space. on the second question of china, this is preliminary results. what i think is interesting from the standpoint of how the data cannot, russia and china are known to be counterfeit sources. the u.s. is the largest consumer of prescription drugs arguably
online. they are over penetrated, the u.s. has the most users in social media. the data is matching upper. the u.k. came in second. we have some counterfeiting incidents there. i think the data, if we really wanted to a deep dive on it, we would understand more. there are certain a minute -- -- limitations to the study. >> i was a senior international policy analyst of the fda for the past five years. >> thanks for coming. >> i would like to know whether you consulted with a lawyer about whether you were violating any state, federal, or international laws? if not, how long would you measure before you were actually apprehended? [laughter] >> i wish i would have talked to
my wife about that before i came here and presented. the good thing about having an adviser is that i think he will go to jail before i will. [laughter] in the academic community, we consult with ethics boards. we did get clearance from the ethics board for this particular intervention. one of the things we had to do is that the site we pointed to said site ever. we wanted to do a health messaging thing. that would be considered a health intervention. then we would have to go through approval for that particular study tight. i do not think there is any particular issue with us track of -- trafficking the data -- tracking the date appeared we are not providing products. ta.we wer
by and a small fry. the professor would hopefully go to jail. i would plea out. i am too young to go to jail. sorry, brian. i hope that helps. [laughter] are we out of time? ok, sure. >> mike miller. very interesting presentation and research. the exit is this way. i will block them. i organized the first meeting between the fda and the pharmaceutical industry and the pharmacy industry about the impact of the industry -- the internet in the 90's. nobody knew anything. we talked about the perceived potential futures. has been very interesting and different. my question is about the
international world, where if there is more crack down on fake medicines, how do you see the criminals in that market devolving, because so much of the development world does communications 3 cellphone and text messages. i get spam text messages less frequently than spam e-mails. i wonder if that is a venue that will need be looked at? have you thought about that? >> i do not dream about it. i tried to dream about things not related to study. i live it most of the day. that is an excellent question. you hit on the next general wage -- next generation of what it will look like. i am in global health. i look at it more in a global perspective. you are seeing the counterfeiting.
as you can see with the emerging markets in a lot of developing companies, the uptake of mobile use is amazing. a lot of the phones are still very limited in their ability to show graphics, etc.. i think, eventually, those types of markets will evolve quickly and rapidly compared to the progress we have made in developing and developed countries, to these forms of self phones that are just more robust in their features. that is what will happen. if the online pharmacies can, they will move toward that faith -- that space. we talked about social media being web to point out. 3.0 is mobile. in developed countries, you are already seeing that shift. apps.
there is arguably more vulnerability in google. that is compared to apple, a closed system. there are potential vulnerabilities for developing markets. we are a little behind. we will still be with the brick and mortar situation. that could change with the adoption of technology. very good question. thank you. thank you very much. >> c-span does a great look at what is happening in washington. you're always surprised what comes back to you and changes your view. it is different than regular media. it is very objective. it shows a lot of what is real and what is going on. i watched hearings on c-span and when senate and house votes on bills, we watch it in the office. also, when the supreme court has hearings, we watch decisions on
c-span. >> erin watches c-span on direct tv. c-span is brought to you by public service by your television provider. >> on tomorrow morning's washington journal, susan glasser examines mitt romney's foreign-policy speech. lisa m. estero discusses the fiscal cliff. "washington journal", live every morning on c-span. live thursday, watch and engage with c-span as the vice- presidential candidates meet in their only debate in kentucky.
our live debate preview start the 7:00 p.m. eastern. at 9:00, abc news chief correspondent martha moderates the 90 minute debate focusing on foreign and domestic policy. after the debate, your calls, e- mails, and tweets. on-line coverage on c-span, c- span radio, and online at c- span.org. >> i will be to this from until it has no more sound. the follow on the question when you said it was a hypothetical situation, it is true after all the reason why we are here tonight. you are running, not just for vice president. [applause] if you cite the experience you had in congress, surely must have some plan in mind about what you would do if it felt you to become president of the united states, as has to summon a vice presidents in the last 25 years. chrysler may try to answer the question one more time. this is the fourth time i have a question. three times?
i have had this question. i kept -- i will try to answer it again as clearly as i can hear the question you are asking is what kind of qualifications do i have to be president. what kind of qualifications do i have and what would i do in this kind of situation? what what i do in this situation? i would make sure the people in the cabinet and the people in the advisor to the president called in and talk to them and i will work with them.
from the date ayatollah khomenei issued the fatwa -- he needed that pretext to do the same thing in pakistan, afghanistan. talk about the stupid taboos against the prophet mohammad, or two years ago with a bigoted preacher in florida who decided to burn korans, it is about political power. then the secretary of state is that to the agent is a fantastic religion. he is entering into the crazy universe of these radical jihadists.
i believe every religion has its own ayatollah. it is a political issue. we are entering into the crazy universe and we lose. this is not religious, we're not gauged in religious disputation. societiesing with that have been brutalized and have been pulverized by their own people, and the arabs who still remember the glory days, watch the rest of the world today and a globalized world like the world is passing them by and leaving behind. this is it. this is it. thank you. >> thank you. [applause]
i am going to ask one brief question i hope you can all tackle briefly before we open it up to the audience for your questions. and i think you ended in a great place, hisham, coz these arguments are not about culture, religion, they are about politics and power. americans seem to recognize that. i would say that although americans like to be liked, based in to admit on this set of issues a degree of pragmatism. i've wanted to ask you, shibley, as one of the authors of the poll, do you think that is an accurate lesson to draw from the data we see, how do you expect the next american president will be able to build on that, if so? we had an election in venezuela yesterday, and i woke up this
morning thinking about latin america where the united states is not very popular and has not been for a long time, for many of the same reasons that hisham note. yet the united states carries on its relationship with countries in latin america. knowing there are pragmatic reasons to change in the war, what policies will the next president be able to put forward and get public support for? >> that is a great question, and i want to say one footnote to something bill said about methodology, people who feel this survey -- it is a national representative survey. they have a scientific random selection of telephone numbers
as well as addresses, and people who do not have internet connections, they provide them with the computer and a connection, and people who do not speak spanish, they provide them with span its translation. >> i was not questioning that. what i was making is there is a difference between polling adults and polling voters. >> that is the methodology question. it is interesting, the result you said -- i think he is right. given what we have seen and what hisham said, a lot of americans have to be frustrated watching this reaction to take place, just the kind of outcry and demonstrations, and yet
they appear to have a nuanced interpretation, and part of it -- and really almost along the lines that hisham suggested, this is being used as a political tool by people who are competing with each other. the public does have that interpretation. may i also add that if you look at the muslim public, hisham right that anti-american views are pervasive. is pretty consistent and has not changed much. there are differences and attitudes on issues like this. one of the interesting things is that world public opinion -- a
poll in 2009 among muslim countries tried to see if they support freedom of speech to people who criticize religion or think countries should pass laws against people who attack religion. there were major differences. the majority in egypt and pakistan wanted to see people punished for attacking religion. majorities in turkey and azerbaijani wanted to see people have the right to criticize religion. their differences across muslim societies. it is not the same thing. we have to keep that in mind. one final note, which has to do with interpreting attitude on syria. i am not sure i agree with bill on this urge of americans need to do something in syria. i am not sure what, but that is
another story. it is hard to see all the carnage bloodshed and not want to do something. if you look at the american public, it is consistent, overwhelmingly opposed to direct military intervention, and if you look at the opposition to even army patrols, because entering a slippery slope, the resistance to being engaged in another war, you have to look at this no-fly zone as something of an aberration because it is an interpretation. libya was almost cost-less. a lot of people have discomfort. it is very hard to watch and
destruction on the scale we are watching and say i cannot do anything about it. that is there, the public is resisting a pact that would take america into war. that is pretty clear. >> romney is, as reported, arguing for greater intervention, he is facing an uphill climb? >> only 22% support arming the rebels, but the opposition among independents is even greater. but if you press it is very interesting to see how the public will react to it. my own view is if you were to make an announcement and we to have a poll tomorrow, that number would increase, and it would not be a question of -- leadership does count for
something. it sways opinion, a little bit, but not enough to make a difference for him, because it will be mostly his core supporters. >> hisham, is there room for a pragmatic engagement with the arab world? with that received a positive response? >> and a big believer in the american engagement in the arab and the muslim world. i believe there are certain things that the united states can only do, from certain military interventions or political support, technical support. i'm always reminded by the fact that the europeans were so helpless by the mass killings of bosnians in the 1990's, which occurred on european soil. for the first time since the
holocaust, people on european soil were being killed because of their ethnic status -- it happened on european soil. only the americans could have intervened. i am a big believer -- >> indispensable nations? >> united states is an indispensable power. that is the reality. united states should continue to engage in the arab world, should invest in a long-term alliance with those people in the arab world and in the muslim world who share with the united states certain values, who believe that it serves their own interests to have a good relationship with the west. they believe there is interest to be part of a globalized world, a big lead in their own interest to have good
relationships with the united states. one of the things i like about this is the majority of americans believe that democracy in those countries are going through a transition. you have a more democratic system in turkey. they support even when the turks support democratic governments -- we acknowledge these countries are talking about countries in transition. islamists are in charge. let's keep their feet to the fire. let's engage them and engage means you deal with them, cooperate with them, keep their feet to the fire, and countries pressure each other.
united states imposed sanctions on other countries. let's not kid ourselves trip. in international relations as, love is not acquired. united states should serve its interests, but our people in the middle east who are supposed to be our natural allies. i would not hold my breath. but you engage them. a country like egypt, a key country, these people created democracy, created central government, they have huge problems. they have to face the fact that they are poor, they're marginalizing themselves. egypt used to be the trend setter in the arab world, for 150 years. egypt cannot even influence
events in gas that. egypt is not equipped to deal with turkey as a regional power. it's still lives in the shadow of its slump. egypt cannot compete with iran. egypt is a poor country, and egyptians should know we have common interests, but you have to follow certain rules. united states should not give one penny to any country unless there is reciprocity. i happen to believe in an ideal world, we should not give israel one penny and we should not give egypt one penny. that is not an ideal world. mursi waits for 30 hours for his first reaction when an american embassy is stormed, and the first reaction is on facebook, where he denounces the movie or the video.
he ends by saying, i asked my embassy in washington to pursue these people. he said this in passing. as a state, we are supposed to protect private and public property. there's no word of sorrow. there was no word of condemnation or culpability -- nothing. i was flabbergasted because the president of the united states, when he made this comment, did not say a word. the initial reaction of the united states was appalling, too. people were demonstrating for something, that the people of united states have nothing to do, and we did not denounce the
fact that the leadership in egypt did not say anything. it is a minority people. it is always a minority people. do you think the majority of the french people stormed the bastille? do you think the majority of the americans fought the british for independence? it is not the majority that does this. it is what the political class in a given country says about the minority, but the intellectuals and journalists say when these things happen. i can deal with the mob. but who is in charge of the country? what happened to salman rushdie
-- he is one of the few people in the arab world who said the fatwa was crazy. >> a question on foreign aid to pick part of the thing we have to understand is the egyptian public does not want to see the aid, either. the american public and the egyptian public -- who are the people pushing for aide put it is primarily government agencies and bureaucracies. they have a lot of interests, and good ones. [indiscernbile] even in congress, they say how are we going to persuade people? people for the pentagon say we need this aid because we need this relationship. it is not public on both sides pushing for the aid, it is agencies. it is self-interested, on the
issue of mursi and what we should be doing, one is i agree the u.s. has to protect its interests. as mursi said, is as unacceptable, because this is a red light on the other hand, we cannot panic in an environment of that sort. you said transitions are unpredictable and all kinds of -- i do not remember the term you used -- when you look at all of that, this is the time not to pull back. you need to engage. the outcome is not decided. there is a battle going on in each of these countries, and if you do not weigh in diplomatically and militarily, if you need be, the outcome will not be to your liking. the worst thing to do, is to say it is anarchic, you pull back, and i think panic is the
wrong strategy. >> those are endorsements for an approach. the challenges democratic society is what they can support that. hisham said that has nothing to do with it. >> time for questions is getting short, so let me be brisk. i will make three points. first of all, building on the centrality of egypt in this discussion, as a naive american, one of the things i learned from your survey work in recent years is that egyptian public opinion is much closer to pakistani public opinion than americans have understood.
that is an important predicate going forward. i agree continued engagement is essential, but we have to be clear about what we are engaging here and now, and this is not a public that likes united states, the degree of antipathy in egypt to the united states and the pervasiveness of into it is something we have to take on board as one of the factors shaping our policy. and if i have misread your surveys, please correct me. i do not think i have. number two, to be pugnacious, i do not accept the distinction between politics and interests on the one hand and culture, religion on the other. i think that is a false start of the discussion. that does not work for the united states or for the muslim world. i do not go by the proposition
that an egyptian public in a free and fair election gave a more than 75% of the vote to this family that you referred to. that is not a reflection of some minority manipulative public opinion. it is public opinion. there is an important religious component to that. one of the things that is important to that component is a concept of blasphemy that was pervasive in the western world five centuries ago. which is a matter of public policy we have left behind. that is a religiously based conflict. we have to face up to it. this is not an argument for disengagement. for tried to fool ourselves into believing no one cares
about that stuff, i do not believe that. about like to be wrong. i do not think i am. >> let me open it up. we have about 50 minutes. i certainly appreciate the engagement. i appreciate it if you keep your questions brief and to the point. and i did it by yourself before your ass. why don't we start right here? >> how much influence did the competition impact opinion effect muslims as compared to the [inaudible] >> a you directing that anyone in particular? >> i did not understand the bottom question.
>> how will it affect voters? >> how does it affect who will windy presidential election -- win the presidential election. >> one point is about the importance of issues. i happen to think that foreign policy is not much of an issue anyway. even though awhile the recent events have increased it, that it is not like of this late in the day and they will worsen the on that scale to have much of an impact. but we have not talked of how people read these issues -- rank these issues. people do rank it in the top five but in an open question, not in terms of this. they tend to bring it in a
little bit higher than democrats. maybe that is one thing that romney is doing. if there is an election, i would make two points. bill made a point earlier on how democrats and republicans are operating on two very different paradigms' about the relationship with the countries. you can see the public opinion poll. they do see it more of a class of civilization. it is pervasive. you find it in almost every issue. there is a philosophical difference. i do not know what mitt romney has in mind. we do not know what he is doing, but the people around him
are many of the same people who were around bush before. i suspect we would expect something more along that line. >> what i am going to do is take several questions and then come back to the panel. let me start right behind you. then we will go across this way in the purple shirt. >> i m a university of california student. in regard to intervention in syria for u.s. policy should be, how do we account for lower level tiers of the fallout if we decide to intervene, for example the alawite population? what'd you think will happen to them? do you think that can be foreseen if we decide to intervene?
>> the 75% who voted for the islamic party not because there were islamic party, but in egypt for 17 years there were no political parties. they became more political. it is small. mohammad morsi was on a visit to the european union. he said that i am against that. we did that except in cairo the demonstrations of private property and buildings.
are you going to enact a lot to stop the abuse of the free speech or religion? >> and question about the possibility of the norm established at the u.n. it gives to the point of this is a deeply seated issue. >> thank you for your presentation. my question goes to you. in a recent panel that happened over here, i think he said the muslim brotherhood is pro- business in fiscal conservative. how does that play as to how they actually perceive the muslim brotherhood or morsi's
party as being part of a unique element? there is politics. >> the kenyan the microphone right there. thank you. >> i am wondering how much being informed effects responses. have you been able to look at the difference between sophisticates and analysis? when you provide more information, a question like that if you had said egypt allowing u.s. warships to go through the suez canal, when you ask a question that way does it end up affecting responses?
>> we have four fascinating questions. >> let me just respond to a couple of them. i confess when the young man asked his question i had a response very much like tammy's. do we have a party like that in the united states tax apparently we do. states? apparently we do. perhaps they will make beautiful music together. if mr. romney becomes president. let me respond to the question that was directly addressed to me. i think that question raised a very important point.
you're absolutely right. for decades the muslim brotherhood was the only game in town and the muslim brotherhood was not exactly welcomed by the egyptian government. it was harassed, suppressed, in jail. it was there. it has much deeper roots in egyptian society band the groups of secularists, a liberal intellectuals, etc. it is entirely possible that over time as the newly party comes face to face with the reality of governing a country that they will respond to that in various ways.
if they do not master the very real and social economic problems, the egyptian public may shift its views over time. i am not saying that the current political figure configuration is letters carved into tablets of stone. not at all. at the same time, i think there is a lot of evidence to the effect that egyptian public opinion is deeply conservative on a range of religious issues. this is not an accident. i do not expect that to change. to the extent there are aspects of western culture that rub up against deep-seated religious
beliefs which i can respect even if i do not agree with them as a political matter, i think we will have an ongoing tension with that a set of beliefs. we believe in freedom of speech just as deeply as people throughout the muslim world believe believe in the idea of honoring the speech the central figure of islam. i think it will be very difficult to bridge that divide whenever it becomes central. i wish i could come to a different conclusion.
that is the fact of the matter. i do not think it is simply a consequence of the history of suppression of the muslim brotherhood. >> this would take forever. we have a civil war. we are going to see more and more communal clashes in syria unless the situation is contained somehow by foreign intervention. we would see a situation similar to 11 on a -- to lebanon. i would hasten to say they are not all with the regime. there are politics in syria. i think from this part, you should hold this first, as the americans have been doing.
we will not help you unless you represents all stripes of the society. i think this is the message that the united states should continue to repeal of the opposition. these are legitimate concerns. when we were there, and yet we have seen 500 of the christians leading. we can discuss it afterward. on the issue of morsi, when he went to italy to announce the attacks, his reaction was appalling. he was exploiting it for his own political ends.
if you read the facebook page of his it is appalling. these are not the views of the president of citified million people and the country that has been around for 70,000 years. they are not the leader of a supposedly great country. there is no expectation on this issue. on the issue of blasphemy, i am against any law against blasphemy. i do not like the fact that others have criminalize denying the holocaust. it should not be the case. in this country we criticize them. you cannot have a law against that. it is free speech. people have the right to be stupid and say outrageous things. one of the reasons i became an
american is because of what i call my secular bible. this is our constitution. take it or leave it. let me tell you another thing. you find the articles and books written against islam in the last 1400 years in europe, you end up with a middle sized theatre. that cannot prevent is lobbying in the last few decades and
generations. -- that did not prevent is long in the last few decades and generations. if they are going to be afraid, is this the reason creating a great culture? baghdad, damascus. you are powerful. you have enough confidence. there is a great passage region by nietche. he said -- he did not like to be some in christianity.
he said i welcome this religion because it says yes to life. it created group culture. it says yes to life. it is not that we have to hide our women. it is not fit to be that link -- a robe should be that length. i can tell you many bad things that the muslims said about religion. who cares? one final thing.
we know that. there also views about the west in general. we should be honest about this. >> thank you. >> let me start with the easy one, the pathological one. there are in fact studies. we have done that before. it used to be in public opinion poll the attentive public opinion that the attention. the chicago council used to do these among the elite. there are some differences. i happen to believe that it is more important to work on what i call the issue of public. i have done work with john early on to people who break in
issue high on the priorities. their opinion matters more for policy. that is a separate issue. i want to end with two points. one is related to what bill said about this exchange. i agree with the bill by the way about identity manners and culture and opinion. keycorp is how they identify themselves. -- the core is how they identify themselves. one reason for it is this incredible difference in identity. the cornerstone is simple to them.
they are very egyptian and geographically situated. they have a history that defines them differently. let's look at this. there is no question that they are strong. they have a president and a parliament. maybe they will learn are something like that. maybe. -- or something like that. maybe. in each a particularly, between the parliamentary and presidential election, what happened? in the presidential election the first round, 46% of the people voted and islamists have an easier time getting people to vote.
in the runoff election against the pro-regime, he barely beat him. egypt is divided in ways even with religion in importance. it is not the most dominant thing in their lives. there's a lot much more going on. all this blasphemy saying i happen to be totally against any loss. i prefer what we have over europe in this issue. if you get down through this slippery slope, there is no end to it. i was a student of modern philosophy. he talked that -- taught that
language is action. it matters and have to pay attention to consequences. i worry more about you interpret that. when you allow elected officials on any given moment to interpret that, it can be disastrous. be careful what you wish for. a month ago the legislature passed a resolution that is not abiding -- non-binding that seemed to be very innocent against anti-emetic language. asking universities in particular to not condone or use public funding for anti- semitism. he would oppose that? this is what they had written down to interpret what it means. all the different things they
put down, somebody like jimmy carter could not get invited. they say human rights activist and not be invited. that is a slippery slope and some of which all have to avoid. what we have a sacred. i certainly do not want to see new laws to limit what people say. >> amne, brother. -- amen brother. >> pleased to join me in as i send you into the public transportation system, a hefty tell you that pamela's ads are now appearing in dc metro.
blasphemy and restricting speech, there has been a very compelling response in n.y. putting up at some next to the gallery at odds -- geller ads. they say, between hate and love, choose love. with that thought, i leave you. [applause] >> said the vice presidential debate this thursday night, live on c-span and online at c- span.org. next, cory booker addresses the human rights campaign's annual dinner. and mitt romney delivers a on foreign policy.
this morning at the national press club, chuck schumer talks about tax policy. startingee it's live, at 10:00 a.m. eastern, here on c-span. pac >> c-span gives a great incentive looks into what is happening in washington. whenever that happens, it changes your view. it is different than regular media. it is objective. it shows a lot of what is real and what is going on. i watched hearings and when the senate and house votes, we watch it in the office. also when the supreme court has hearings. watch different decisions and opinions. >> aaron and watches c-span on
correct tv -- erin watches c- span on the directtv. >> the human rights campaign, a group advocating equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender americans, held its annual dinner on saturday. headlining the event was newark, new jersey mayor cory booker who talked about what he called the common ancestry shared by both the civil rights and gay rights movements. this is about 30 minutes. [applause] >> thank you so much. good evening, washington. thank you for that warm welcome. my amazing mom is here from arkansas this evening.
[applause] while i have my doubts, she has assured me that she is not just here to see a cirque du soleil performance. [laughter] it is a real honor to be introduced at my first national dinner by two families who have inspired me since the darkest days of proposition 8. chris and sandy, paul and jeff, thanks to your determination to tell your stories, today, we are all poised to witness history when the supreme court strikes down proposition 8 and restores marriage equality in the most populous state in america once and for all. [applause] it is such an exciting time to be part of this organization and this movement. we are making history, we are
witnessing progress that many of us thought we might never see in our lifetimes. men and women in the military serving openly with honesty and dignity. 35 million, 35 million americans living in a state where they are free to marry the person they love. the president of the united states declaring it is time to end a marriage of discrimination. for the first time, a majority of the american people seeing they agree. we are making history. [applause] we are making history in our time, and we are ready to make more. in fact, we have to. we have accomplished so much, yet we have so far to go. we cannot get comfortable thinking that this historic progress is enough. the gains we have made are not felt equally across this country. for every loving and committed couple celebrating their
equality of marriage, many more are denied that opportunity by their state. even by their own neighbors at the ballot box. the discriminatory defense of marriage act denies even legally married couples the full respect of the law. even as our military celebrate one year of open service, lesbian and gay service members are still denied equal benefits by the country they fight for. our transgendered brothers and sisters are still barred from openly serving the country they love. today in 29 states, it is still perfectly legal to be denied a job just for being gay. in 34 states, you can be fired simply because you are a transgendered american. after all, if you are in this room tonight, you are not only fighting for your own personal rights, you are here because
you understand that we have a moral responsibility to stand up for those who cannot. on my very first day on this job back in june, and that two people remind me what this fight is all about. how much work we have ahead of us, and how much hope people are feeling across this country. hope for more people future that is just over the horizon. one of the people and that was a gentleman named richard. richard is 74 years old, and he just came out of the closet last october. [applause] all he wanted to talk about was how he could get involved in the fight for equality. he wanted to make up for lost time, to try and regain some part of the identity that he lost to those decades in the
closet. even more, he wanted to build a more equal country, a better future for today's young people, to spare others the lifetime of struggle and pain that he has endured. richard's story reminds me every day that there is a human face to our struggle, lives lived with the consequences of inequality and discrimination. the pace of progress we make is not just about making history. it matters in our lives and the lives of millions of our fellow americans who may not feel as empowered as we do. there are many, many people like richard who are ready to stand up and join us. the same day that i met richard, i was at an event in little rock, arkansas, my home state. the room was packed, and a 19- year-old young woman stood up right in front of us. her eyes were full of tears.
she said she had driven two hours just to be there. this young woman told me that she grew up in a small town, in a deeply conservative home, living under her given name, and loving her family with all her heart. she knows they love her too. she is equally certain that all of that would change if she told them the truth, that she is a lesbian. in her own home town, in her own home, she does not reveal the truth about who she is. we all know the pain and loneliness that comes from that kind of life. every chance she gets, this young woman gets in her car, and drives more than 100 miles to littlerock. there she is a different person, going by an entirely different name, alice. alice has are on a separate facebook page.
she hangs out with her own group of excepting friends. in little rock, alice can stand up in the crowded room and tell her story. but when she walked back through her parents front door, she steps back into the pain of that closet. all she wants is acceptance, and she will do just about anything to create a world that treats her with respect she knows in her heart she deserves. richard and alice have plenty of reasons to be impatient. they have plenty of reasons to be resentful. but in the face of it all, they are optimistic, they feel a change in the air, and they know our moment is at hand. my friends, we have a choice to make. we could choose to step back, look at our recent successes, place our trust in the winds of public opinion, and simply wait until the institutions of power
finally oped their doors to our community. or we can choose to be bold, we can choose to fight, fight for the loss that we know we need, and the country that our families deserve. fight until the gains we have made our felt equally in all corners of this country. my friends, hrc chooses to be bold. we choose to fight. if you are here tonight, i know you agree. [applause] you know -- you know we have to start right now. after all, this election is our next best chance to make historic progress. it can be a real turning point, but it could go either way. either mitt romney will have a national platform to defend the discriminatory defense of marriage act, or we will send president barack obama back to the white house with our real equality mandate. [applause]
either the united states senate can ignore the voices calling for equality beyond those marble walls of that capital, or we will send tammy baldwin to stand in that chamber as a living reminder of our families, our lives, and our human dignity. [applause] either our adversaries at the ridiculously named national organization for marriage will strip away equal rights at the ballot box, or voters will stand up for marriage a quality in maryland, minnesota, maine, and washington. this is our moment. [applause] we are here in this room tonight because we are determined to
lay claim to the grand urgency of this cause, and to recognize the real-life consequences to inaction. we are here tonight because we know how life can shatter when a partner dies, and state- sanctioned discrimination adds insult to personal tragedy. we are here because some of us were that young person turning off lights at night and lying awake, staring at the ceiling and fearing the potential doom of the next day. most of all, we are here because we know alice and richard cannot wait, and that the future we stand to gain is worth fighting for right now. a future with schools that will come all young people, and a faith communities that embrace all who come to worship. a future with workplaces that respect our families and a value our contributions regardless of who we are.
a future not long from now where who you love never limits how you live. your support of this movement and this organization makes that future possible. thank you very much. [applause] >> ♪ when love takes over -- do you feel it too? ♪ >> thank you. this evening that i have the distinct honor of introducing an distinct honor of introducing an individual who is both a